Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 671

control, N = 341

treatment, N = 331

p-value2

age

67

50.77 ± 12.88 (25 - 74)

50.17 ± 13.49 (25 - 74)

51.38 ± 12.40 (31 - 72)

0.705

gender

67

0.856

f

46 (69%)

23 (68%)

23 (70%)

m

21 (31%)

11 (32%)

10 (30%)

occupation

67

0.922

day_training

1 (1.5%)

1 (2.9%)

0 (0%)

full_time

6 (9.0%)

4 (12%)

2 (6.1%)

homemaker

6 (9.0%)

3 (8.8%)

3 (9.1%)

other

2 (3.0%)

0 (0%)

2 (6.1%)

part_time

11 (16%)

5 (15%)

6 (18%)

retired

15 (22%)

7 (21%)

8 (24%)

self_employ

2 (3.0%)

1 (2.9%)

1 (3.0%)

student

1 (1.5%)

0 (0%)

1 (3.0%)

t_and_e

2 (3.0%)

1 (2.9%)

1 (3.0%)

unemploy

21 (31%)

12 (35%)

9 (27%)

marital

67

>0.999

cohabitation

1 (1.5%)

0 (0%)

1 (3.0%)

divore

7 (10%)

4 (12%)

3 (9.1%)

married

14 (21%)

7 (21%)

7 (21%)

none

39 (58%)

20 (59%)

19 (58%)

seperation

3 (4.5%)

2 (5.9%)

1 (3.0%)

widow

3 (4.5%)

1 (2.9%)

2 (6.1%)

edu

67

0.997

bachelor

19 (28%)

9 (26%)

10 (30%)

diploma

12 (18%)

7 (21%)

5 (15%)

hd_ad

3 (4.5%)

2 (5.9%)

1 (3.0%)

postgraduate

6 (9.0%)

3 (8.8%)

3 (9.1%)

primary

5 (7.5%)

2 (5.9%)

3 (9.1%)

secondary_1_3

6 (9.0%)

3 (8.8%)

3 (9.1%)

secondary_4_5

14 (21%)

7 (21%)

7 (21%)

secondary_6_7

2 (3.0%)

1 (2.9%)

1 (3.0%)

fam_income

67

0.822

10001_12000

4 (6.0%)

1 (2.9%)

3 (9.1%)

12001_14000

4 (6.0%)

2 (5.9%)

2 (6.1%)

14001_16000

5 (7.5%)

2 (5.9%)

3 (9.1%)

16001_18000

2 (3.0%)

1 (2.9%)

1 (3.0%)

18001_20000

3 (4.5%)

3 (8.8%)

0 (0%)

20001_above

10 (15%)

6 (18%)

4 (12%)

2001_4000

9 (13%)

6 (18%)

3 (9.1%)

4001_6000

9 (13%)

4 (12%)

5 (15%)

6001_8000

6 (9.0%)

3 (8.8%)

3 (9.1%)

8001_10000

6 (9.0%)

2 (5.9%)

4 (12%)

below_2000

9 (13%)

4 (12%)

5 (15%)

medication

67

57 (85%)

30 (88%)

27 (82%)

0.512

onset_duration

67

15.03 ± 11.66 (0 - 56)

16.60 ± 12.84 (1 - 56)

13.41 ± 10.23 (0 - 35)

0.266

onset_age

67

35.74 ± 14.16 (14 - 64)

33.57 ± 12.91 (14 - 58)

37.97 ± 15.21 (15 - 64)

0.206

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 671

control, N = 341

treatment, N = 331

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

67

3.16 ± 1.25 (1 - 5)

3.18 ± 1.29 (1 - 5)

3.15 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)

0.936

recovery_stage_b

67

17.91 ± 2.65 (9 - 23)

17.76 ± 2.69 (9 - 23)

18.06 ± 2.65 (13 - 23)

0.651

ras_confidence

67

30.25 ± 4.80 (19 - 43)

29.56 ± 4.19 (19 - 40)

30.97 ± 5.33 (20 - 43)

0.232

ras_willingness

67

12.03 ± 1.96 (7 - 15)

11.85 ± 1.84 (9 - 15)

12.21 ± 2.09 (7 - 15)

0.458

ras_goal

67

17.48 ± 3.00 (12 - 24)

17.41 ± 2.99 (12 - 24)

17.55 ± 3.05 (12 - 24)

0.857

ras_reliance

67

13.19 ± 2.87 (8 - 20)

12.88 ± 2.64 (8 - 18)

13.52 ± 3.09 (8 - 20)

0.370

ras_domination

67

10.00 ± 2.21 (3 - 15)

10.44 ± 1.99 (6 - 15)

9.55 ± 2.36 (3 - 14)

0.097

symptom

67

30.48 ± 9.93 (14 - 56)

31.26 ± 9.78 (14 - 52)

29.67 ± 10.16 (15 - 56)

0.514

slof_work

67

22.33 ± 4.80 (10 - 30)

22.32 ± 4.35 (15 - 30)

22.33 ± 5.30 (10 - 30)

0.993

slof_relationship

67

25.54 ± 6.01 (11 - 35)

25.09 ± 6.14 (13 - 35)

26.00 ± 5.92 (11 - 35)

0.539

satisfaction

67

20.49 ± 6.87 (5 - 32)

18.97 ± 6.50 (5 - 29)

22.06 ± 6.98 (5 - 32)

0.065

mhc_emotional

67

11.16 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)

10.74 ± 3.35 (3 - 17)

11.61 ± 4.26 (4 - 18)

0.355

mhc_social

67

14.69 ± 5.16 (6 - 26)

14.94 ± 5.01 (7 - 26)

14.42 ± 5.37 (6 - 26)

0.685

mhc_psychological

67

22.01 ± 5.92 (6 - 36)

21.53 ± 5.33 (10 - 33)

22.52 ± 6.52 (6 - 36)

0.500

resilisnce

67

16.58 ± 4.62 (6 - 27)

16.21 ± 4.42 (6 - 24)

16.97 ± 4.86 (7 - 27)

0.503

social_provision

67

13.67 ± 3.00 (5 - 20)

13.24 ± 2.59 (8 - 20)

14.12 ± 3.34 (5 - 20)

0.229

els_value_living

67

17.25 ± 2.99 (5 - 25)

16.62 ± 2.40 (12 - 22)

17.91 ± 3.40 (5 - 25)

0.077

els_life_fulfill

67

12.79 ± 3.30 (4 - 20)

11.79 ± 3.04 (5 - 17)

13.82 ± 3.28 (4 - 20)

0.011

els

67

30.04 ± 5.62 (9 - 45)

28.41 ± 4.45 (20 - 36)

31.73 ± 6.25 (9 - 45)

0.015

social_connect

67

27.22 ± 9.24 (8 - 48)

28.09 ± 8.11 (8 - 45)

26.33 ± 10.33 (8 - 48)

0.441

shs_agency

67

14.34 ± 4.89 (3 - 24)

13.68 ± 4.54 (3 - 21)

15.03 ± 5.21 (3 - 24)

0.260

shs_pathway

67

16.57 ± 3.96 (4 - 24)

16.09 ± 3.82 (8 - 24)

17.06 ± 4.11 (4 - 23)

0.319

shs

67

30.91 ± 8.36 (7 - 47)

29.76 ± 7.99 (13 - 45)

32.09 ± 8.70 (7 - 47)

0.258

esteem

67

12.64 ± 1.46 (10 - 18)

12.76 ± 1.50 (10 - 18)

12.52 ± 1.44 (10 - 16)

0.490

mlq_search

67

14.88 ± 3.43 (3 - 21)

14.85 ± 3.20 (6 - 21)

14.91 ± 3.69 (3 - 21)

0.947

mlq_presence

67

13.46 ± 4.16 (3 - 21)

13.38 ± 3.53 (5 - 20)

13.55 ± 4.77 (3 - 21)

0.874

mlq

67

28.34 ± 6.79 (6 - 42)

28.24 ± 6.03 (12 - 40)

28.45 ± 7.60 (6 - 42)

0.896

empower

67

19.49 ± 4.17 (6 - 28)

19.03 ± 3.84 (11 - 24)

19.97 ± 4.49 (6 - 28)

0.360

ismi_resistance

67

14.58 ± 2.75 (5 - 20)

14.26 ± 2.29 (11 - 19)

14.91 ± 3.17 (5 - 20)

0.342

ismi_discrimation

67

11.39 ± 3.28 (5 - 19)

12.38 ± 2.81 (5 - 18)

10.36 ± 3.46 (5 - 19)

0.011

sss_affective

67

10.09 ± 3.88 (3 - 18)

10.74 ± 3.41 (3 - 18)

9.42 ± 4.27 (3 - 18)

0.169

sss_behavior

67

9.81 ± 4.01 (3 - 18)

10.65 ± 3.91 (3 - 18)

8.94 ± 3.99 (3 - 18)

0.081

sss_cognitive

67

8.34 ± 4.06 (3 - 18)

8.79 ± 4.24 (3 - 18)

7.88 ± 3.88 (3 - 18)

0.360

sss

67

28.24 ± 11.09 (9 - 54)

30.18 ± 10.35 (9 - 54)

26.24 ± 11.62 (9 - 54)

0.148

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.18

0.211

2.76, 3.59

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.025

0.301

-0.615, 0.566

0.934

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.309

0.330

-0.338, 0.956

0.354

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.064

0.457

-0.832, 0.960

0.889

Pseudo R square

0.017

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.8

0.468

16.8, 18.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.296

0.667

-1.01, 1.60

0.658

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.106

0.664

-1.41, 1.20

0.874

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.547

0.918

-1.25, 2.35

0.554

Pseudo R square

0.011

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.6

0.866

27.9, 31.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.41

1.234

-1.01, 3.83

0.256

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.460

0.946

-1.39, 2.31

0.630

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.023

1.305

-2.53, 2.58

0.986

Pseudo R square

0.022

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.9

0.342

11.2, 12.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.359

0.487

-0.596, 1.31

0.464

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.835

0.343

-1.51, -0.163

0.020

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.657

0.473

-0.270, 1.58

0.173

Pseudo R square

0.039

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.4

0.548

16.3, 18.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.134

0.780

-1.40, 1.66

0.864

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.915

0.602

-2.09, 0.264

0.136

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.49

0.829

-0.135, 3.12

0.080

Pseudo R square

0.022

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

12.9

0.482

11.9, 13.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.633

0.687

-0.714, 1.98

0.360

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.269

0.445

-0.602, 1.14

0.549

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.696

0.612

-0.504, 1.90

0.263

Pseudo R square

0.038

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.4

0.377

9.70, 11.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.896

0.538

-1.95, 0.159

0.100

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.374

0.516

-1.39, 0.638

0.473

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.16

0.713

-0.240, 2.55

0.112

Pseudo R square

0.030

symptom

(Intercept)

31.3

1.705

27.9, 34.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.60

2.430

-6.36, 3.16

0.513

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.518

1.241

-2.95, 1.91

0.679

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.231

1.707

-3.58, 3.12

0.893

Pseudo R square

0.008

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.3

0.836

20.7, 24.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.010

1.191

-2.33, 2.34

0.993

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.425

0.710

-1.82, 0.966

0.553

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.898

0.977

-2.81, 1.02

0.364

Pseudo R square

0.010

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

25.1

1.028

23.1, 27.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.912

1.464

-1.96, 3.78

0.535

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.45

0.986

-3.39, 0.481

0.150

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.790

1.359

-1.87, 3.45

0.565

Pseudo R square

0.017

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.0

1.193

16.6, 21.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

3.09

1.700

-0.243, 6.42

0.073

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.741

1.358

-1.92, 3.40

0.588

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.58

1.873

-5.25, 2.10

0.405

Pseudo R square

0.036

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.7

0.650

9.46, 12.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.871

0.926

-0.944, 2.69

0.350

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.678

0.615

-0.527, 1.88

0.278

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.27

0.846

-2.93, 0.384

0.141

Pseudo R square

0.010

mhc_social

(Intercept)

14.9

0.919

13.1, 16.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.517

1.310

-3.08, 2.05

0.694

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.20

1.025

-0.808, 3.21

0.249

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.43

1.414

-4.20, 1.34

0.318

Pseudo R square

0.014

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.5

1.069

19.4, 23.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.986

1.524

-2.00, 3.97

0.520

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.715

1.146

-1.53, 2.96

0.537

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.93

1.580

-5.02, 1.17

0.230

Pseudo R square

0.006

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.2

0.759

14.7, 17.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.764

1.082

-1.36, 2.88

0.482

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.267

0.767

-1.24, 1.77

0.730

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.393

1.056

-1.68, 2.46

0.712

Pseudo R square

0.014

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.2

0.501

12.3, 14.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.886

0.714

-0.513, 2.28

0.218

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.449

0.552

-1.53, 0.633

0.421

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.248

0.761

-1.24, 1.74

0.746

Pseudo R square

0.029

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.6

0.505

15.6, 17.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.29

0.719

-0.118, 2.70

0.076

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.551

0.528

-0.484, 1.59

0.303

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.474

0.728

-1.90, 0.953

0.519

Pseudo R square

0.040

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

11.8

0.526

10.8, 12.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.02

0.750

0.555, 3.49

0.009

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.03

0.555

-0.059, 2.12

0.072

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.827

0.765

-2.33, 0.673

0.287

Pseudo R square

0.088

els

(Intercept)

28.4

0.920

26.6, 30.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

3.32

1.311

0.745, 5.89

0.014

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.50

0.900

-0.259, 3.27

0.103

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.21

1.239

-3.64, 1.22

0.335

Pseudo R square

0.078

social_connect

(Intercept)

28.1

1.557

25.0, 31.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.75

2.219

-6.10, 2.59

0.432

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.203

1.283

-2.31, 2.72

0.875

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.037

1.765

-3.50, 3.42

0.984

Pseudo R square

0.010

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.7

0.835

12.0, 15.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.35

1.190

-0.978, 3.69

0.259

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.314

0.830

-1.31, 1.94

0.707

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.318

1.144

-1.92, 2.56

0.783

Pseudo R square

0.025

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

16.1

0.670

14.8, 17.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.972

0.954

-0.898, 2.84

0.312

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.407

0.585

-0.740, 1.55

0.491

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.567

0.806

-2.15, 1.01

0.486

Pseudo R square

0.011

shs

(Intercept)

29.8

1.416

27.0, 32.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.33

2.018

-1.63, 6.28

0.253

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.655

1.250

-1.79, 3.10

0.603

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.162

1.720

-3.53, 3.21

0.925

Pseudo R square

0.020

esteem

(Intercept)

12.8

0.237

12.3, 13.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.250

0.337

-0.911, 0.412

0.461

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.405

0.404

-0.386, 1.20

0.324

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.180

0.561

-1.28, 0.920

0.751

Pseudo R square

0.024

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.9

0.592

13.7, 16.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.056

0.843

-1.60, 1.71

0.947

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.149

0.771

-1.66, 1.36

0.848

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.002

1.065

-2.09, 2.09

0.999

Pseudo R square

0.000

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.4

0.702

12.0, 14.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.163

1.001

-1.80, 2.12

0.871

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.016

0.856

-1.69, 1.66

0.985

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.094

1.180

-2.22, 2.41

0.937

Pseudo R square

0.001

mlq

(Intercept)

28.2

1.179

25.9, 30.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.219

1.680

-3.07, 3.51

0.897

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.179

1.466

-3.05, 2.69

0.903

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.092

2.023

-3.87, 4.06

0.964

Pseudo R square

0.000

empower

(Intercept)

19.0

0.688

17.7, 20.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.940

0.980

-0.980, 2.86

0.340

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.297

0.679

-1.03, 1.63

0.664

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.02

0.935

-2.86, 0.810

0.281

Pseudo R square

0.010

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.3

0.444

13.4, 15.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.644

0.632

-0.595, 1.88

0.311

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.550

0.643

-0.710, 1.81

0.397

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.728

0.889

-2.47, 1.01

0.417

Pseudo R square

0.012

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

12.4

0.548

11.3, 13.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-2.02

0.781

-3.55, -0.488

0.012

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.933

0.566

-2.04, 0.176

0.108

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.49

0.779

-0.033, 3.02

0.063

Pseudo R square

0.066

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.7

0.640

9.48, 12.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.31

0.911

-3.10, 0.475

0.155

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.042

0.571

-1.08, 1.16

0.942

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.882

0.786

-2.42, 0.660

0.269

Pseudo R square

0.051

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.6

0.656

9.36, 11.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.71

0.935

-3.54, 0.126

0.072

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.035

0.650

-1.31, 1.24

0.957

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.644

0.896

-2.40, 1.11

0.477

Pseudo R square

0.064

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.79

0.683

7.45, 10.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.915

0.974

-2.82, 0.993

0.350

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.947

0.586

-0.202, 2.09

0.115

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.72

0.807

-3.30, -0.137

0.040

Pseudo R square

0.044

sss

(Intercept)

30.2

1.830

26.6, 33.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-3.93

2.607

-9.04, 1.18

0.136

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.05

1.500

-1.89, 3.99

0.490

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.33

2.065

-7.37, 0.719

0.116

Pseudo R square

0.060

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.31) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.18 (95% CI [2.76, 3.59], t(95) = 15.02, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.57], t(95) = -0.08, p = 0.934; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.96], t(95) = 0.94, p = 0.349; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.78])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.96], t(95) = 0.14, p = 0.888; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.78])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.45) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.76 (95% CI [16.85, 18.68], t(95) = 37.97, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-1.01, 1.60], t(95) = 0.44, p = 0.657; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.59])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-1.41, 1.20], t(95) = -0.16, p = 0.874; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-1.25, 2.35], t(95) = 0.60, p = 0.551; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.87])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.56 (95% CI [27.86, 31.26], t(95) = 34.14, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.41, 95% CI [-1.01, 3.83], t(95) = 1.14, p = 0.253; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.76])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-1.39, 2.31], t(95) = 0.49, p = 0.627; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.46])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-2.53, 2.58], t(95) = 0.02, p = 0.986; Std. beta = 4.59e-03, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.51])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.85 (95% CI [11.18, 12.52], t(95) = 34.65, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.31], t(95) = 0.74, p = 0.461; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.66])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-1.51, -0.16], t(95) = -2.43, p = 0.015; Std. beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-0.76, -0.08])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.27, 1.58], t(95) = 1.39, p = 0.165; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.79])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.41 (95% CI [16.34, 18.49], t(95) = 31.79, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.40, 1.66], t(95) = 0.17, p = 0.864; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.52])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.91, 95% CI [-2.09, 0.26], t(95) = -1.52, p = 0.128; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.08])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.49, 95% CI [-0.13, 3.12], t(95) = 1.80, p = 0.072; Std. beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.97])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.88 (95% CI [11.94, 13.83], t(95) = 26.70, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.71, 1.98], t(95) = 0.92, p = 0.357; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.68])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.14], t(95) = 0.61, p = 0.545; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.50, 1.90], t(95) = 1.14, p = 0.256; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.65])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.51) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.44 (95% CI [9.70, 11.18], t(95) = 27.66, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.90, 95% CI [-1.95, 0.16], t(95) = -1.67, p = 0.096; Std. beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.07])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.39, 0.64], t(95) = -0.72, p = 0.469; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.16, 95% CI [-0.24, 2.55], t(95) = 1.62, p = 0.104; Std. beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.11, 1.16])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.87) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.24e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.26 (95% CI [27.92, 34.61], t(95) = 18.33, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.60, 95% CI [-6.36, 3.16], t(95) = -0.66, p = 0.511; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-2.95, 1.91], t(95) = -0.42, p = 0.676; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.19])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-3.58, 3.12], t(95) = -0.14, p = 0.892; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.31])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.32 (95% CI [20.68, 23.96], t(95) = 26.70, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 9.80e-03, 95% CI [-2.33, 2.34], t(95) = 8.23e-03, p = 0.993; Std. beta = 2.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-1.82, 0.97], t(95) = -0.60, p = 0.549; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.90, 95% CI [-2.81, 1.02], t(95) = -0.92, p = 0.358; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.21])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.09 (95% CI [23.07, 27.10], t(95) = 24.42, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-1.96, 3.78], t(95) = 0.62, p = 0.533; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.65])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.45, 95% CI [-3.39, 0.48], t(95) = -1.47, p = 0.141; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.08])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-1.87, 3.45], t(95) = 0.58, p = 0.561; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.59])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.97 (95% CI [16.63, 21.31], t(95) = 15.90, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.09, 95% CI [-0.24, 6.42], t(95) = 1.82, p = 0.069; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.92])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-1.92, 3.40], t(95) = 0.55, p = 0.585; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.49])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.58, 95% CI [-5.25, 2.10], t(95) = -0.84, p = 0.400; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.73e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.74 (95% CI [9.46, 12.01], t(95) = 16.52, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-0.94, 2.69], t(95) = 0.94, p = 0.347; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.72])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.53, 1.88], t(95) = 1.10, p = 0.270; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.51])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.27, 95% CI [-2.93, 0.38], t(95) = -1.51, p = 0.132; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.10])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.94 (95% CI [13.14, 16.74], t(95) = 16.26, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-3.08, 2.05], t(95) = -0.39, p = 0.693; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.38])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.20, 95% CI [-0.81, 3.21], t(95) = 1.17, p = 0.241; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.60])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.43, 95% CI [-4.20, 1.34], t(95) = -1.01, p = 0.312; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.49e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.53 (95% CI [19.43, 23.63], t(95) = 20.13, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-2.00, 3.97], t(95) = 0.65, p = 0.518; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.64])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-1.53, 2.96], t(95) = 0.62, p = 0.533; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.48])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.93, 95% CI [-5.02, 1.17], t(95) = -1.22, p = 0.223; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.21 (95% CI [14.72, 17.69], t(95) = 21.35, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-1.36, 2.88], t(95) = 0.71, p = 0.480; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.66])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-1.24, 1.77], t(95) = 0.35, p = 0.728; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.40])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-1.68, 2.46], t(95) = 0.37, p = 0.710; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.56])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.24 (95% CI [12.25, 14.22], t(95) = 26.42, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.51, 2.28], t(95) = 1.24, p = 0.214; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.78])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.53, 0.63], t(95) = -0.81, p = 0.416; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-1.24, 1.74], t(95) = 0.33, p = 0.744; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.59])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.62 (95% CI [15.63, 17.61], t(95) = 32.94, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.29, 95% CI [-0.12, 2.70], t(95) = 1.80, p = 0.072; Std. beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.90])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.48, 1.59], t(95) = 1.04, p = 0.297; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.53])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-1.90, 0.95], t(95) = -0.65, p = 0.515; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.09. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.79 (95% CI [10.76, 12.83], t(95) = 22.42, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.02, 95% CI [0.55, 3.49], t(95) = 2.70, p = 0.007; Std. beta = 0.64, 95% CI [0.18, 1.11])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.06, 2.12], t(95) = 1.85, p = 0.064; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.67])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-2.33, 0.67], t(95) = -1.08, p = 0.280; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.21])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.41 (95% CI [26.61, 30.22], t(95) = 30.87, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.32, 95% CI [0.75, 5.89], t(95) = 2.53, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.60, 95% CI [0.13, 1.06])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.50, 95% CI [-0.26, 3.27], t(95) = 1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.59])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.21, 95% CI [-3.64, 1.22], t(95) = -0.98, p = 0.329; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.22])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.50e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.09 (95% CI [25.04, 31.14], t(95) = 18.04, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.75, 95% CI [-6.10, 2.59], t(95) = -0.79, p = 0.429; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.28])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-2.31, 2.72], t(95) = 0.16, p = 0.874; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-3.50, 3.42], t(95) = -0.02, p = 0.983; Std. beta = -3.97e-03, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.37])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.68 (95% CI [12.04, 15.31], t(95) = 16.38, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.35, 95% CI [-0.98, 3.69], t(95) = 1.14, p = 0.255; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.76])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-1.31, 1.94], t(95) = 0.38, p = 0.705; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.40])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.92, 2.56], t(95) = 0.28, p = 0.781; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.53])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.09 (95% CI [14.78, 17.40], t(95) = 24.02, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.90, 2.84], t(95) = 1.02, p = 0.308; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.75])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.74, 1.55], t(95) = 0.70, p = 0.486; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-2.15, 1.01], t(95) = -0.70, p = 0.481; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.76 (95% CI [26.99, 32.54], t(95) = 21.02, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.33, 95% CI [-1.63, 6.28], t(95) = 1.15, p = 0.249; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.77])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-1.79, 3.10], t(95) = 0.52, p = 0.600; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-3.53, 3.21], t(95) = -0.09, p = 0.925; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.40])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is weak (conditional R2 = 0.12) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.76 (95% CI [12.30, 13.23], t(95) = 53.92, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.91, 0.41], t(95) = -0.74, p = 0.459; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.39, 1.20], t(95) = 1.00, p = 0.316; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.87])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-1.28, 0.92], t(95) = -0.32, p = 0.748; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.67])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.79e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.85 (95% CI [13.69, 16.01], t(95) = 25.11, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-1.60, 1.71], t(95) = 0.07, p = 0.947; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-1.66, 1.36], t(95) = -0.19, p = 0.847; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.40])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.79e-03, 95% CI [-2.09, 2.09], t(95) = -1.68e-03, p = 0.999; Std. beta = -5.31e-04, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.62])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.20e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.38 (95% CI [12.01, 14.76], t(95) = 19.06, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.80, 2.12], t(95) = 0.16, p = 0.871; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.53])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-1.69, 1.66], t(95) = -0.02, p = 0.985; Std. beta = -4.01e-03, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-2.22, 2.41], t(95) = 0.08, p = 0.937; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.60])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.15e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.24 (95% CI [25.92, 30.55], t(95) = 23.94, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-3.07, 3.51], t(95) = 0.13, p = 0.896; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.52])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-3.05, 2.69], t(95) = -0.12, p = 0.903; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.40])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-3.87, 4.06], t(95) = 0.05, p = 0.964; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.60])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.77e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.03 (95% CI [17.68, 20.38], t(95) = 27.67, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.98, 2.86], t(95) = 0.96, p = 0.337; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.72])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-1.03, 1.63], t(95) = 0.44, p = 0.662; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.02, 95% CI [-2.86, 0.81], t(95) = -1.09, p = 0.274; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.42) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.26 (95% CI [13.39, 15.13], t(95) = 32.14, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.88], t(95) = 1.02, p = 0.308; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.73])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.71, 1.81], t(95) = 0.86, p = 0.392; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.70])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.73, 95% CI [-2.47, 1.01], t(95) = -0.82, p = 0.413; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.39])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.38 (95% CI [11.31, 13.46], t(95) = 22.59, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.02, 95% CI [-3.55, -0.49], t(95) = -2.58, p = 0.010; Std. beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.09, -0.15])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.93, 95% CI [-2.04, 0.18], t(95) = -1.65, p = 0.099; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.05])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.49, 95% CI [-0.03, 3.02], t(95) = 1.92, p = 0.055; Std. beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-9.98e-03, 0.93])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.74 (95% CI [9.48, 11.99], t(95) = 16.79, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.31, 95% CI [-3.10, 0.48], t(95) = -1.44, p = 0.150; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.12])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.08, 1.16], t(95) = 0.07, p = 0.942; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.88, 95% CI [-2.42, 0.66], t(95) = -1.12, p = 0.262; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.17])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.65 (95% CI [9.36, 11.93], t(95) = 16.22, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.71, 95% CI [-3.54, 0.13], t(95) = -1.83, p = 0.068; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.90, 0.03])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-1.31, 1.24], t(95) = -0.05, p = 0.957; Std. beta = -8.87e-03, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-2.40, 1.11], t(95) = -0.72, p = 0.472; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.79 (95% CI [7.45, 10.13], t(95) = 12.87, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.92, 95% CI [-2.82, 0.99], t(95) = -0.94, p = 0.347; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.95, 95% CI [-0.20, 2.09], t(95) = 1.62, p = 0.106; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.53])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.72, 95% CI [-3.30, -0.14], t(95) = -2.13, p = 0.033; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.83, -0.03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.18 (95% CI [26.59, 33.76], t(95) = 16.49, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.93, 95% CI [-9.04, 1.18], t(95) = -1.51, p = 0.131; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.11])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-1.89, 3.99], t(95) = 0.70, p = 0.485; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.33, 95% CI [-7.37, 0.72], t(95) = -1.61, p = 0.107; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.07])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

330.052

337.898

-162.026

324.052

recovery_stage_a

random

6

333.742

349.433

-160.871

321.742

2.311

3

0.511

recovery_stage_b

null

3

484.912

492.757

-239.456

478.912

recovery_stage_b

random

6

489.783

505.474

-238.892

477.783

1.128

3

0.770

ras_confidence

null

3

595.284

603.129

-294.642

589.284

ras_confidence

random

6

599.240

614.931

-293.620

587.240

2.044

3

0.563

ras_willingness

null

3

407.143

414.989

-200.572

401.143

ras_willingness

random

6

406.339

422.030

-197.170

394.339

6.804

3

0.078

ras_goal

null

3

504.940

512.785

-249.470

498.940

ras_goal

random

6

507.057

522.748

-247.529

495.057

3.883

3

0.274

ras_reliance

null

3

471.609

479.454

-232.804

465.609

ras_reliance

random

6

470.426

486.116

-229.213

458.426

7.183

3

0.066

ras_domination

null

3

442.858

450.703

-218.429

436.858

ras_domination

random

6

444.494

460.185

-216.247

432.494

4.364

3

0.225

symptom

null

3

705.296

713.141

-349.648

699.296

symptom

random

6

710.172

725.863

-349.086

698.172

1.124

3

0.771

slof_work

null

3

574.473

582.318

-284.237

568.473

slof_work

random

6

576.241

591.932

-282.121

564.241

4.232

3

0.237

slof_relationship

null

3

622.913

630.759

-308.457

616.913

slof_relationship

random

6

625.754

641.445

-306.877

613.754

3.159

3

0.368

satisfaction

null

3

663.981

671.826

-328.990

657.981

satisfaction

random

6

666.519

682.210

-327.260

654.519

3.462

3

0.326

mhc_emotional

null

3

528.938

536.783

-261.469

522.938

mhc_emotional

random

6

532.256

547.947

-260.128

520.256

2.681

3

0.443

mhc_social

null

3

608.562

616.407

-301.281

602.562

mhc_social

random

6

612.558

628.249

-300.279

600.558

2.004

3

0.572

mhc_psychological

null

3

636.464

644.310

-315.232

630.464

mhc_psychological

random

6

640.688

656.379

-314.344

628.688

1.776

3

0.620

resilisnce

null

3

563.515

571.361

-278.758

557.515

resilisnce

random

6

567.786

583.476

-277.893

555.786

1.730

3

0.630

social_provision

null

3

485.988

493.833

-239.994

479.988

social_provision

random

6

489.195

504.885

-238.597

477.195

2.794

3

0.425

els_value_living

null

3

485.565

493.411

-239.783

479.565

els_value_living

random

6

487.499

503.190

-237.749

475.499

4.066

3

0.254

els_life_fulfill

null

3

500.238

508.084

-247.119

494.238

els_life_fulfill

random

6

496.434

512.125

-242.217

484.434

9.804

3

0.020

els

null

3

607.158

615.003

-300.579

601.158

els

random

6

604.630

620.320

-296.315

592.630

8.528

3

0.036

social_connect

null

3

694.634

702.479

-344.317

688.634

social_connect

random

6

699.906

715.597

-343.953

687.906

0.727

3

0.867

shs_agency

null

3

582.482

590.328

-288.241

576.482

shs_agency

random

6

586.015

601.706

-287.008

574.015

2.467

3

0.481

shs_pathway

null

3

528.689

536.534

-261.344

522.689

shs_pathway

random

6

533.295

548.986

-260.647

521.295

1.394

3

0.707

shs

null

3

681.035

688.881

-337.518

675.035

shs

random

6

685.169

700.860

-336.584

673.169

1.866

3

0.601

esteem

null

3

355.801

363.647

-174.901

349.801

esteem

random

6

359.320

375.011

-173.660

347.320

2.481

3

0.479

mlq_search

null

3

526.748

534.594

-260.374

520.748

mlq_search

random

6

532.658

548.349

-260.329

520.658

0.090

3

0.993

mlq_presence

null

3

557.497

565.342

-275.748

551.497

mlq_presence

random

6

563.442

579.133

-275.721

551.442

0.055

3

0.997

mlq

null

3

663.349

671.195

-328.675

657.349

mlq

random

6

669.303

684.994

-328.652

657.303

0.046

3

0.997

empower

null

3

542.394

550.239

-268.197

536.394

empower

random

6

546.385

562.076

-267.193

534.385

2.008

3

0.571

ismi_resistance

null

3

475.561

483.406

-234.780

469.561

ismi_resistance

random

6

480.145

495.835

-234.072

468.145

1.416

3

0.702

ismi_discrimation

null

3

505.793

513.638

-249.897

499.793

ismi_discrimation

random

6

503.345

519.036

-245.673

491.345

8.448

3

0.038

sss_affective

null

3

524.968

532.814

-259.484

518.968

sss_affective

random

6

525.377

541.067

-256.688

513.377

5.592

3

0.133

sss_behavior

null

3

536.898

544.743

-265.449

530.898

sss_behavior

random

6

537.238

552.929

-262.619

525.238

5.659

3

0.129

sss_cognitive

null

3

536.636

544.481

-265.318

530.636

sss_cognitive

random

6

536.133

551.824

-262.067

524.133

6.502

3

0.090

sss

null

3

732.913

740.759

-363.457

726.913

sss

random

6

732.193

747.883

-360.096

720.193

6.721

3

0.081

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

34

3.18 ± 1.23

33

3.15 ± 1.23

0.934

0.024

recovery_stage_a

2nd

16

3.49 ± 1.22

-0.298

18

3.52 ± 1.22

-0.360

0.926

-0.038

recovery_stage_b

1st

34

17.76 ± 2.73

33

18.06 ± 2.73

0.658

-0.146

recovery_stage_b

2nd

16

17.66 ± 2.61

0.052

18

18.50 ± 2.63

-0.217

0.351

-0.415

ras_confidence

1st

34

29.56 ± 5.05

33

30.97 ± 5.05

0.256

-0.505

ras_confidence

2nd

16

30.02 ± 4.38

-0.165

18

31.45 ± 4.48

-0.173

0.348

-0.514

ras_willingness

1st

34

11.85 ± 1.99

33

12.21 ± 1.99

0.464

-0.358

ras_willingness

2nd

16

11.02 ± 1.68

0.831

18

12.03 ± 1.73

0.177

0.086

-1.011

ras_goal

1st

34

17.41 ± 3.19

33

17.55 ± 3.19

0.864

-0.075

ras_goal

2nd

16

16.50 ± 2.78

0.515

18

18.12 ± 2.84

-0.324

0.095

-0.915

ras_reliance

1st

34

12.88 ± 2.81

33

13.52 ± 2.81

0.360

-0.489

ras_reliance

2nd

16

13.15 ± 2.31

-0.208

18

14.48 ± 2.39

-0.745

0.103

-1.026

ras_domination

1st

34

10.44 ± 2.20

33

9.55 ± 2.20

0.100

0.571

ras_domination

2nd

16

10.07 ± 2.08

0.238

18

10.33 ± 2.09

-0.500

0.715

-0.167

symptom

1st

34

31.26 ± 9.94

33

29.67 ± 9.94

0.513

0.447

symptom

2nd

16

30.75 ± 7.70

0.145

18

28.92 ± 8.06

0.210

0.500

0.512

slof_work

1st

34

22.32 ± 4.88

33

22.33 ± 4.88

0.993

-0.005

slof_work

2nd

16

21.90 ± 3.92

0.207

18

21.01 ± 4.07

0.644

0.518

0.432

slof_relationship

1st

34

25.09 ± 5.99

33

26.00 ± 5.99

0.535

-0.317

slof_relationship

2nd

16

23.64 ± 4.98

0.504

18

25.34 ± 5.14

0.230

0.330

-0.591

satisfaction

1st

34

18.97 ± 6.96

33

22.06 ± 6.96

0.073

-0.768

satisfaction

2nd

16

19.71 ± 6.12

-0.184

18

21.23 ± 6.25

0.207

0.478

-0.376

mhc_emotional

1st

34

10.74 ± 3.79

33

11.61 ± 3.79

0.350

-0.486

mhc_emotional

2nd

16

11.41 ± 3.14

-0.378

18

11.01 ± 3.24

0.333

0.713

0.225

mhc_social

1st

34

14.94 ± 5.36

33

14.42 ± 5.36

0.694

0.171

mhc_social

2nd

16

16.14 ± 4.68

-0.396

18

14.20 ± 4.78

0.076

0.234

0.642

mhc_psychological

1st

34

21.53 ± 6.23

33

22.52 ± 6.23

0.520

-0.292

mhc_psychological

2nd

16

22.24 ± 5.37

-0.212

18

21.30 ± 5.50

0.359

0.616

0.278

resilisnce

1st

34

16.21 ± 4.43

33

16.97 ± 4.43

0.482

-0.340

resilisnce

2nd

16

16.47 ± 3.74

-0.119

18

17.63 ± 3.84

-0.294

0.376

-0.515

social_provision

1st

34

13.24 ± 2.92

33

14.12 ± 2.92

0.218

-0.543

social_provision

2nd

16

12.79 ± 2.54

0.276

18

13.92 ± 2.60

0.123

0.202

-0.696

els_value_living

1st

34

16.62 ± 2.94

33

17.91 ± 2.94

0.076

-0.832

els_value_living

2nd

16

17.17 ± 2.51

-0.355

18

17.99 ± 2.58

-0.050

0.352

-0.527

els_life_fulfill

1st

34

11.79 ± 3.07

33

13.82 ± 3.07

0.009

-1.240

els_life_fulfill

2nd

16

12.82 ± 2.63

-0.630

18

14.02 ± 2.70

-0.124

0.193

-0.733

els

1st

34

28.41 ± 5.37

33

31.73 ± 5.37

0.014

-1.261

els

2nd

16

29.92 ± 4.49

-0.572

18

32.02 ± 4.62

-0.112

0.181

-0.801

social_connect

1st

34

28.09 ± 9.08

33

26.33 ± 9.08

0.432

0.473

social_connect

2nd

16

28.29 ± 7.24

-0.055

18

26.50 ± 7.52

-0.045

0.481

0.483

shs_agency

1st

34

13.68 ± 4.87

33

15.03 ± 4.87

0.259

-0.557

shs_agency

2nd

16

13.99 ± 4.09

-0.129

18

15.66 ± 4.21

-0.260

0.244

-0.688

shs_pathway

1st

34

16.09 ± 3.90

33

17.06 ± 3.90

0.312

-0.572

shs_pathway

2nd

16

16.50 ± 3.16

-0.240

18

16.90 ± 3.28

0.094

0.715

-0.238

shs

1st

34

29.76 ± 8.26

33

32.09 ± 8.26

0.253

-0.641

shs

2nd

16

30.42 ± 6.70

-0.181

18

32.58 ± 6.94

-0.136

0.358

-0.596

esteem

1st

34

12.76 ± 1.38

33

12.52 ± 1.38

0.461

0.191

esteem

2nd

16

13.17 ± 1.40

-0.310

18

12.74 ± 1.40

-0.172

0.373

0.328

mlq_search

1st

34

14.85 ± 3.45

33

14.91 ± 3.45

0.947

-0.024

mlq_search

2nd

16

14.70 ± 3.19

0.064

18

14.76 ± 3.23

0.065

0.961

-0.023

mlq_presence

1st

34

13.38 ± 4.09

33

13.55 ± 4.09

0.871

-0.064

mlq_presence

2nd

16

13.37 ± 3.69

0.006

18

13.62 ± 3.75

-0.030

0.841

-0.101

mlq

1st

34

28.24 ± 6.88

33

28.45 ± 6.88

0.897

-0.050

mlq

2nd

16

28.06 ± 6.25

0.041

18

28.37 ± 6.34

0.020

0.886

-0.071

empower

1st

34

19.03 ± 4.01

33

19.97 ± 4.01

0.340

-0.474

empower

2nd

16

19.33 ± 3.36

-0.149

18

19.24 ± 3.46

0.366

0.944

0.042

ismi_resistance

1st

34

14.26 ± 2.59

33

14.91 ± 2.59

0.311

-0.326

ismi_resistance

2nd

16

14.81 ± 2.50

-0.278

18

14.73 ± 2.51

0.090

0.922

0.042

ismi_discrimation

1st

34

12.38 ± 3.20

33

10.36 ± 3.20

0.012

1.216

ismi_discrimation

2nd

16

11.45 ± 2.72

0.562

18

10.93 ± 2.79

-0.339

0.581

0.316

sss_affective

1st

34

10.74 ± 3.73

33

9.42 ± 3.73

0.155

0.790

sss_affective

2nd

16

10.78 ± 3.04

-0.025

18

8.58 ± 3.14

0.506

0.041

1.321

sss_behavior

1st

34

10.65 ± 3.83

33

8.94 ± 3.83

0.072

0.897

sss_behavior

2nd

16

10.61 ± 3.21

0.018

18

8.26 ± 3.31

0.357

0.038

1.236

sss_cognitive

1st

34

8.79 ± 3.98

33

7.88 ± 3.98

0.350

0.539

sss_cognitive

2nd

16

9.74 ± 3.21

-0.557

18

7.11 ± 3.33

0.454

0.021

1.550

sss

1st

34

30.18 ± 10.67

33

26.24 ± 10.67

0.136

0.907

sss

2nd

16

31.22 ± 8.49

-0.241

18

23.96 ± 8.83

0.526

0.016

1.674

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(91.87) = -0.08, p = 0.934, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.57)

2st

t(96.01) = 0.09, p = 0.926, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.79 to 0.87)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(86.43) = 0.44, p = 0.658, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.03 to 1.62)

2st

t(95.71) = 0.94, p = 0.351, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.94 to 2.63)

ras_confidence

1st

t(76.19) = 1.14, p = 0.256, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-1.05 to 3.87)

2st

t(96.99) = 0.94, p = 0.348, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-1.59 to 4.45)

ras_willingness

1st

t(74.10) = 0.74, p = 0.464, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.33)

2st

t(96.79) = 1.74, p = 0.086, Cohen d = -1.01, 95% CI (-0.15 to 2.18)

ras_goal

1st

t(76.33) = 0.17, p = 0.864, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.42 to 1.69)

2st

t(96.98) = 1.69, p = 0.095, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (-0.29 to 3.54)

ras_reliance

1st

t(72.47) = 0.92, p = 0.360, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.74 to 2.00)

2st

t(95.93) = 1.65, p = 0.103, Cohen d = -1.03, 95% CI (-0.27 to 2.93)

ras_domination

1st

t(84.53) = -1.67, p = 0.100, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-1.97 to 0.17)

2st

t(95.81) = 0.37, p = 0.715, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.16 to 1.68)

symptom

1st

t(69.39) = -0.66, p = 0.513, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-6.44 to 3.25)

2st

t(90.59) = -0.68, p = 0.500, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-7.20 to 3.54)

slof_work

1st

t(71.19) = 0.01, p = 0.993, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-2.37 to 2.39)

2st

t(94.49) = -0.65, p = 0.518, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-3.61 to 1.83)

slof_relationship

1st

t(73.22) = 0.62, p = 0.535, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-2.01 to 3.83)

2st

t(96.43) = 0.98, p = 0.330, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-1.75 to 5.15)

satisfaction

1st

t(77.35) = 1.82, p = 0.073, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (-0.30 to 6.48)

2st

t(96.89) = 0.71, p = 0.478, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-2.70 to 5.73)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(72.93) = 0.94, p = 0.350, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.97 to 2.72)

2st

t(96.26) = -0.37, p = 0.713, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-2.58 to 1.77)

mhc_social

1st

t(76.76) = -0.39, p = 0.694, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-3.12 to 2.09)

2st

t(96.95) = -1.20, p = 0.234, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-5.17 to 1.28)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(75.68) = 0.65, p = 0.520, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-2.05 to 4.02)

2st

t(97.00) = -0.50, p = 0.616, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-4.65 to 2.77)

resilisnce

1st

t(74.26) = 0.71, p = 0.482, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.39 to 2.92)

2st

t(96.83) = 0.89, p = 0.376, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-1.43 to 3.74)

social_provision

1st

t(76.42) = 1.24, p = 0.218, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.54 to 2.31)

2st

t(96.98) = 1.29, p = 0.202, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (-0.62 to 2.89)

els_value_living

1st

t(75.09) = 1.80, p = 0.076, Cohen d = -0.83, 95% CI (-0.14 to 2.72)

2st

t(96.97) = 0.94, p = 0.352, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.92 to 2.55)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(75.28) = 2.70, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -1.24, 95% CI (0.53 to 3.52)

2st

t(96.98) = 1.31, p = 0.193, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (-0.62 to 3.01)

els

1st

t(73.57) = 2.53, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -1.26, 95% CI (0.70 to 5.93)

2st

t(96.60) = 1.35, p = 0.181, Cohen d = -0.80, 95% CI (-1.00 to 5.21)

social_connect

1st

t(70.78) = -0.79, p = 0.432, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-6.18 to 2.67)

2st

t(93.83) = -0.71, p = 0.481, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-6.82 to 3.24)

shs_agency

1st

t(73.92) = 1.14, p = 0.259, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-1.02 to 3.72)

2st

t(96.73) = 1.17, p = 0.244, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (-1.16 to 4.50)

shs_pathway

1st

t(71.62) = 1.02, p = 0.312, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.93 to 2.87)

2st

t(95.07) = 0.37, p = 0.715, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.79 to 2.60)

shs

1st

t(71.76) = 1.15, p = 0.253, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (-1.70 to 6.35)

2st

t(95.24) = 0.92, p = 0.358, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-2.48 to 6.81)

esteem

1st

t(96.36) = -0.74, p = 0.461, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-0.92 to 0.42)

2st

t(96.85) = -0.89, p = 0.373, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.38 to 0.52)

mlq_search

1st

t(82.34) = 0.07, p = 0.947, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.62 to 1.73)

2st

t(96.06) = 0.05, p = 0.961, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.14 to 2.24)

mlq_presence

1st

t(79.62) = 0.16, p = 0.871, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.83 to 2.15)

2st

t(96.52) = 0.20, p = 0.841, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-2.28 to 2.80)

mlq

1st

t(80.37) = 0.13, p = 0.897, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-3.12 to 3.56)

2st

t(96.38) = 0.14, p = 0.886, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-3.98 to 4.60)

empower

1st

t(73.77) = 0.96, p = 0.340, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-1.01 to 2.89)

2st

t(96.68) = -0.07, p = 0.944, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-2.41 to 2.24)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(87.58) = 1.02, p = 0.311, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.90)

2st

t(95.70) = -0.10, p = 0.922, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.79 to 1.62)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(74.74) = -2.58, p = 0.012, Cohen d = 1.22, 95% CI (-3.57 to -0.46)

2st

t(96.93) = -0.55, p = 0.581, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-2.40 to 1.35)

sss_affective

1st

t(71.95) = -1.44, p = 0.155, Cohen d = 0.79, 95% CI (-3.13 to 0.51)

2st

t(95.44) = -2.07, p = 0.041, Cohen d = 1.32, 95% CI (-4.30 to -0.09)

sss_behavior

1st

t(73.85) = -1.83, p = 0.072, Cohen d = 0.90, 95% CI (-3.57 to 0.16)

2st

t(96.71) = -2.10, p = 0.038, Cohen d = 1.24, 95% CI (-4.57 to -0.13)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(71.33) = -0.94, p = 0.350, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-2.86 to 1.03)

2st

t(94.69) = -2.35, p = 0.021, Cohen d = 1.55, 95% CI (-4.86 to -0.41)

sss

1st

t(70.72) = -1.51, p = 0.136, Cohen d = 0.91, 95% CI (-9.13 to 1.26)

2st

t(93.72) = -2.44, p = 0.016, Cohen d = 1.67, 95% CI (-13.17 to -1.36)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(46.81) = 1.17, p = 0.497, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.02)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(42.88) = 0.69, p = 0.986, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.85 to 1.73)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(37.26) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.35 to 2.31)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(36.24) = -0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-0.84 to 0.48)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(37.33) = 1.00, p = 0.645, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.74)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(35.46) = 2.28, p = 0.057, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (0.11 to 1.82)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(41.73) = 1.58, p = 0.243, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.78)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(34.01) = -0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-3.14 to 1.64)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(34.85) = -1.96, p = 0.115, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-2.69 to 0.04)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(35.81) = -0.71, p = 0.970, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-2.57 to 1.24)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(37.84) = -0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-3.46 to 1.79)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(35.68) = -1.02, p = 0.628, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.78 to 0.59)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(37.55) = -0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-2.21 to 1.75)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(37.01) = -1.11, p = 0.550, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-3.43 to 1.00)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(36.32) = 0.90, p = 0.744, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.82 to 2.14)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(37.38) = -0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.27 to 0.87)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(36.72) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.94 to 1.10)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(36.81) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.87 to 1.27)

els

1st vs 2st

t(35.98) = 0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.44 to 2.03)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(34.66) = 0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-2.31 to 2.64)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(36.15) = 0.80, p = 0.859, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.97 to 2.23)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(35.05) = -0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.29 to 0.97)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(35.12) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.92 to 2.90)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(52.35) = 0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.56 to 1.01)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(40.47) = -0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.65 to 1.34)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(39.01) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.58 to 1.73)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(39.41) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-2.93 to 2.75)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(36.08) = -1.12, p = 0.537, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-2.04 to 0.58)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(43.62) = -0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.43 to 1.07)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(36.55) = 1.04, p = 0.607, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.65)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(35.21) = -1.55, p = 0.261, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-1.94 to 0.26)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(36.12) = -1.10, p = 0.560, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.93 to 0.58)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(34.92) = -1.39, p = 0.349, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-1.90 to 0.36)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(34.63) = -1.60, p = 0.236, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-5.17 to 0.61)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(49.74) = 0.93, p = 0.718, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.98)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(44.98) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.46 to 1.25)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(38.22) = 0.48, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.47 to 2.39)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(37.00) = -2.42, p = 0.041, Cohen d = 0.83, 95% CI (-1.53 to -0.14)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(38.29) = -1.51, p = 0.278, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-2.14 to 0.31)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(36.07) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.18)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(43.58) = -0.72, p = 0.954, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-1.42 to 0.68)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(34.36) = -0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-3.05 to 2.01)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(35.35) = -0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.87 to 1.02)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(36.49) = -1.46, p = 0.303, Cohen d = 0.50, 95% CI (-3.46 to 0.56)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(38.91) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-2.03 to 3.51)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(36.33) = 1.10, p = 0.560, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.57 to 1.93)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(38.55) = 1.16, p = 0.504, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.89 to 3.29)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(37.91) = 0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.62 to 3.05)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(37.09) = 0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.30 to 1.83)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(38.35) = -0.81, p = 0.848, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.57 to 0.68)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(37.57) = 1.04, p = 0.613, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.63)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(37.68) = 1.84, p = 0.147, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-0.10 to 2.16)

els

1st vs 2st

t(36.69) = 1.66, p = 0.210, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.33 to 3.34)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(35.12) = 0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-2.41 to 2.82)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(36.89) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.38 to 2.01)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(35.59) = 0.69, p = 0.986, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.79 to 1.60)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(35.67) = 0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.89 to 3.20)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(56.40) = 0.99, p = 0.651, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.22)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(42.07) = -0.19, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.72 to 1.42)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(40.30) = -0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.76 to 1.73)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(40.78) = -0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-3.16 to 2.81)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(36.80) = 0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.68)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(45.88) = 0.85, p = 0.804, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.76 to 1.86)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(37.37) = -1.64, p = 0.219, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-2.09 to 0.22)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(35.77) = 0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.12 to 1.21)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(36.85) = -0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.36 to 1.29)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(35.43) = 1.61, p = 0.233, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.25 to 2.14)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(35.09) = 0.70, p = 0.983, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-2.01 to 4.10)

Plot

Clinical significance